Meritocracy and Discrimination in Tech • Hacker News Board

Re: Meritocracy and Discrimination in Tech

#21

Post by namank » Sat, Feb 16, 2013, 10:09 PM UTC

cantastoria wrote: post #7

jfim wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't it the exact opposite of a meritocracy? If someone makes something awesome, it doesn't really matter if they're 14 year olds, women, men or aliens. I know at least I'd high five someone who made something cool, regardless of gender/age/other factors.

The parent is describing the postmodern definition of Meritocracy where "merit" is just a point view. In that world all achievements/failures must be evaluated in light of the person or group's privilege/race/class/gender and sexuality. People who subscribe to this definition really don't believe in meritocracy as it's generally viewed as a way to institutionalize white male advantage. Just a heads up :)

While I did borrow from feminist epistomology, that's not the point.

Simply put, having a diverse workforce is better because it introduces diversity in work.

Re: Meritocracy and Discrimination in Tech

#22

Post by kamens » Sat, Feb 16, 2013, 10:09 PM UTC

cantastoria wrote: post #14

kamens wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what I'm asking you is: can you come up with any possible explanations for an increase in women devs over time that should be celebrated, especially at an organization that values equal education for everyone, without first wondering if our interview questions have changed ?

Can you come up with any possible explanation period? You're dodging my question.

An increase in women in tech majors and a company mission that strongly appeals to both women and men.

Re: Meritocracy and Discrimination in Tech

#23

Post by yummyfajitas » Sat, Feb 16, 2013, 10:11 PM UTC

eshvk wrote: post #15

cantastoria wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The parent is describing the postmodern definition of Meritocracy where "merit" is just a point view. In that world all achievements/failures must be evaluated in light of the person or group's privilege/race/class/gender and sexuality. People who subscribe to this definition really don't believe in meritocracy as it's generally viewed as a way to institutionalize white male advantage. Just a heads up :)

I am not sure whether this is what the parent meant. I mean one way of looking at it is that the more people from completely different backgrounds do things, the more interesting the work gets. E.g. it is possible that some people (teens, women) have a better perspective on solving some problems that affect them more. I generally support the success of more people from varied backgrounds in tech. Mainly because it ma…

E.g. it is possible that some people (teens, women) have a better perspective on solving some problems that affect them more.

Is it possible that some people (men, whites, asians) have a better perspective on solving some problems?

Re: Meritocracy and Discrimination in Tech

#24

Post by abraxasz » Sat, Feb 16, 2013, 10:12 PM UTC

I'm from a minority, and I'm currently enrolled in a phd program (well, about to enroll in september) in a top university. I've been working really, really, really hard to get there. Like, really hard. So it does piss me off when people just waive their hands and say: "pfff, must have been affirmative action or something".

That being said, I understand their reaction. When I put myself in a white male's shoes and I hear every day that we should remedy this and this instance of blatant discrimination, and the next day I hear that a company celebrates the fact that there are more women/blacks/whatever being hired, then it's true that the connection: they got hired BECAUSE they where women/black is a rather tempting conclusion.. and is sometimes true.

I think that some companies are at fault here, using anti-discrimination as a PR move. This can, and I think, does antagonize a lot of people, and is counter productive.

Re: Meritocracy and Discrimination in Tech

#25

Post by brown9-2 » Sat, Feb 16, 2013, 10:13 PM UTC

cantastoria wrote: post #4

I'm curious to know what aspects of Khan's recruiting/admission policies resulted in such a large number of female admissions. It would be nice if the authors' response included some description of their policies. As the person who stands at the end of our hiring process’s pipeline, I find “Mark“‘s idea that we’re sacrificing quality to fill some quota merely very insulting. If I were one of the women who has success…

There seems to be an assumption here that Khan Academy made some change that resulted in this outcome, instead of it being a natural occurence.

Re: Meritocracy and Discrimination in Tech

#26

Post by cantastoria » Sat, Feb 16, 2013, 10:14 PM UTC

rjknight wrote: post #18

One of the commonly-stated reasons for why discrimination persists in a field is that people making hiring decisions are biased. They might not know that they're biased, but they have some notions about the kind of people they want to see working for their company, and they disproportionately hire those people. This is quite an insidious form of discrimination because it's hard to prove, but it is possible to catch p…

Agreed although I'd be careful with this,

A key point about bias and discrimination is that people aren't (and often can't be!) aware of their own biases

as it's typically the beginning of an explanation for why admissions/hiring policies are being changed to ensure an equal outcome or Khan's case a 2:1 outcome (which apparently is just great as long as it's in the right direction).

Re: Meritocracy and Discrimination in Tech

#27

Post by LockeWatts » Sat, Feb 16, 2013, 10:15 PM UTC

mjmahone17 wrote: post #20

LockeWatts wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a better criterion with which to measure?

How about proven ability to overcome adversity?

Well A) How do you plan on quantitatively measuring that so that all candidates are equally considered? and B) What does that have to do with writing software?

Re: Meritocracy and Discrimination in Tech

#28

Post by LockeWatts » Sat, Feb 16, 2013, 10:16 PM UTC

spamizbad wrote: post #17

Are tech internships a big enough deal with people to merit this controversy? Don't tell me you need to participate in one these days to break into the industry(if so, that's sad).

I'm in college presently, and to get into the tech world, it's a requirement from where I'm sitting. Good candidates have multiple ones with big name companies\hot start ups.

Re: Meritocracy and Discrimination in Tech

#29

Post by jfim » Sat, Feb 16, 2013, 10:19 PM UTC

cantastoria wrote: post #7

jfim wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't it the exact opposite of a meritocracy? If someone makes something awesome, it doesn't really matter if they're 14 year olds, women, men or aliens. I know at least I'd high five someone who made something cool, regardless of gender/age/other factors.

The parent is describing the postmodern definition of Meritocracy where "merit" is just a point view. In that world all achievements/failures must be evaluated in light of the person or group's privilege/race/class/gender and sexuality. People who subscribe to this definition really don't believe in meritocracy as it's generally viewed as a way to institutionalize white male advantage. Just a heads up :)

I completely agree with you that there is more merit(effort) in coming from a disadvantaged background (say x-5) and getting to point x than coming from a wealthier background (x-3) and getting to point x.

I believe though that a meritocracy is a system where people are selected based on an objective criterion, regardless of the above definition of merit and completely orthogonally to privilege/race/class/gender.

Re: Meritocracy and Discrimination in Tech

#30

Post by LockeWatts » Sat, Feb 16, 2013, 10:21 PM UTC

rjknight wrote: post #18

One of the commonly-stated reasons for why discrimination persists in a field is that people making hiring decisions are biased. They might not know that they're biased, but they have some notions about the kind of people they want to see working for their company, and they disproportionately hire those people. This is quite an insidious form of discrimination because it's hard to prove, but it is possible to catch p…

"how there are exclusive events for female staff where female leadership is advocated."

Can someone on HN give me a level headed explanation, for why this is more appropriate than the opposite (An event exclusive to men)? It's never made sense to me why one is accepted and the other isn't.